It’s Friday, February 24th, 2012….and here’s The Gouge!

First up, the WSJ‘s take on our President….and what passes for his “energy policy”:

We beg to differ if they swallow this tripe!

‘Stupid’ and Oil Prices

Obama’s Forrest Gump analysis of rising gas prices.

‘The American people aren’t stupid,” thundered President Obama yesterday in Miami, ridiculing Republicans who are blaming him for rising gasoline prices. Let’s hope he’s right, because not even Forrest Gump could believe the logic of what Mr. Obama is trying to sell.

To wit, that a) gasoline prices are beyond his control, but b) to the extent oil and gas production is rising in America, his energy policies deserve all the credit, and c) higher prices are one more reason to raise taxes on oil and gas drillers while handing even more subsidies to his friends in green energy. Where to begin?

It’s true enough that oil prices can’t be commanded from the Oval Office, so in that sense Mr. Obama’s disavowal of blame is a rare show of humility in the face of market forces. Would that he showed similar modesty in trying to command the tides of home prices, car sales (“cash for clunkers”), or the production of electric batteries.

The oil price surge has several likely sources. One is the turmoil in the Middle East, especially new fears of a supply shock from a conflict with Iran. But it’s worth recalling that Mr. Obama also blamed the last oil-price surge, in spring 2011, on the Libyan uprising. Moammar Gadhafi is now gone and Libyan oil production is coming back on stream, yet oil prices dipped only briefly below $90 a barrel and have been rising since October. Something else must be going on.

Mr. Obama yesterday blamed rising demand from the likes of Brazil and China, and there is something to that as well. But this energy demand is also not new, and if anything Chinese and Brazilian economic growth has been slowing in recent months.

Another suspect—one Mr. Obama doesn’t like to mention—is U.S. monetary policy. Oil is traded in dollars, and its price therefore rises when the value of the dollar falls, all else being equal. The Federal Reserve throughout Mr. Obama’s term has pursued the easiest monetary policy in modern times, expressly to revive the housing market. It has done so with the private support and urging of the White House and through Mr. Obama’s appointees who are now a majority on the Fed’s Board of Governors. Oil staged its last price surge along with other commodity prices when the Fed revved up its second burst of “quantitative easing” in 2010-2011. Prices stabilized when QE2 ended. But in recent months the Fed has again signaled its commitment to near-zero interest rates first through 2013, and recently through 2014. Commodity prices, including oil, have since begun another surge, and hedge funds have begun to bet on commodity plays again. John Paulson says he’s betting on gold, the ultimate hedge against a falling dollar.

Fed officials and Mr. Obama want to take credit for easy money if stock-market and housing prices rise, but then deny any responsibility if commodity prices rise too, causing food and energy prices to soar for consumers. They can’t have it both ways, as not-so-stupid Americans intuitively understand when they buy groceries or gas. This is the double-edged sword of an economic recovery “built to last” on easy money rather than on sound fiscal and regulatory policies.

As for domestic energy, Mr. Obama rightly points to the rising share of U.S. oil consumption now produced at home. But this trend began in the late Bush Administration, which opened up large new areas on and offshore for oil and gas drilling that are now coming on stream. Mr. Obama sneered at expanded drilling as a candidate in 2008 and for most of his term has done little to expand it.

In early 2010, he proposed to open some new areas to drilling but shut that down after the Gulf oil spill. According to the Greater New Orleans Gulf Permits Index for January 31, over the previous three months the feds issued an average of three deep-water drilling permits a month compared to the historical average of seven. Over the same three months, the feds approved an average of 4.7 shallow-water permits a month, compared to the historical average of 14.7.

Approval of an offshore drilling plan now takes 92 days, 31 more than the historical average. And so far in 2012, an average of 23% of all drilling plans have been approved, compared to the average of 73.4%.

Oh, and don’t forget the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have increased the delivery of oil from Canada and North Dakota’s Bakken Shale to Gulf Coast refineries, replacing oil from Venezuela.

The reality is that most of the increase in U.S. oil and gas production has come despite the Obama Administration. It is flowing from the shale boom, which is the result of private technological advances and investment. Mr. Obama has seen the energy sun rise and is crowing like a rooster that he made it happen.

Mr. Obama yesterday also repeated his proposal that now is the time to raise taxes on oil and gas companies, as if doing so will make them more likely to drill. He must not believe the economic truism that when you tax something you get less of it, including fewer of the new jobs they’ve created.

We’d almost feel sorry for Mr. Obama’s gas-price predicament if it weren’t a case of rough justice. The President has deliberately sought to raise the price of energy throughout the economy via his cap-and-trade agenda. He is now getting his wish, albeit a little too overtly for political comfort. Mr. Obama has also spent three years blaming George W. Bush for every economic ill. If Mr. Obama now feels frustrated by economic events beyond his control, perhaps he should call Mr. Bush for consolation.

Let’s recap: here’s the Manchurian Candidate’s solution to high gasoline prices four years ago:

That was The Obamao’s solution then; THIS is his solution now:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/23/147_obama_if_we_could_make_energy_out_of_algae_well_be_alright.html

So how high would prices at the pump need to go, inquiring minds want to know, before Dimocrats determine the needs of the nation outweigh the grossly inflated fears of the Environazis?  As evidenced by the position of the current Secretary of the Interior….

….when Hell freezes over.

Tick-Tock was right about one thing; America HAS been hearing the same thing for over 30 years.  And that’s the Liberal lie that increased supply will not impact domestic fuel prices.

Here’s the question the GOP needs to pose in their campaign ads: President Obama, forget 30 years ago; if we’d increased our drilling offshore and in ANWR even 10 years ago, would the resultant oil not have been of benefit today?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch with The Gang That Still Can’t Shoot Straight, writing in the Morning Examiner, Conn Carroll details how….

Santorum Takes One For The Team

Campaign debates are never about who did best overall on any given night. They are about the individual moments that can define a candidate weeks later. And by that standard, Rick Santoum had a terrible night last night.

Mere minutes after CNN’s John King asked each candidate to choose a word that best defines them, and Santorum chose “courage,” Santorum was then asked to defend his vote in favor of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law. Santorum replied:

I have to admit, I voted for that. It was against the principles I believed in, but, you know, when you’re part of the team, sometimes you take one for the team, for the leader, and I made a mistake.

As The Washington Examiner‘s Phil Klein wrote last night, Santorum’s admission that he voted against his own principles only reminds many conservatives why the don’t trust him:

This gets at the heart of the problem with Santorum, which I wrote about the day he announced he was running for president — he was the quintessential Bush era Republican. As the number three Republican in the Senate, he was a loyal soldier and went along with Bush’s big government policies, from NCLB to the Medicare prescription drug law. The very problem with the Bush era was precisely that too many Republicans decided to be team players rather than push back against the president when he was violating conservative principles. It’s this very “team player” mentality that the Tea Party movement, in part, was created to combat. Santorum spent the early part of his debate touting his opposition to the Wall Street bailout, but his argument tonight about taking one for the team leaves little doubt that he would have voted for the bailout had he still been in the Senate in 2008.

If Santorum goes on to lose Arizona and Michigan and gets swept on Super Tuesday, his “you take one for the team” moment will be remembered as the turning point in the primary.

In a related item, Kimberly Strassel questions the efficacy of Santorum as the….

Moralizer in Chief?

Americans are open to candidates of faith. Less so to any hint they might impose their moral views if they’re elected.

Asked at the close of Wednesday’s Arizona debate what the biggest “misconception” about him is in this primary, Rick Santorum acknowledged voters worry he can’t “defeat Barack Obama.” Give the man credit for a little awareness.

Only it’s not a misconception, at least not now. The former senator has a potentially fatal general-election liability on social issues. His supporters may admire him for taking on this subject, and they may be swallowing his argument that this is nothing more than a media-conjured controversy. But that’s baloney.

General elections are not won on bases alone. They are won on the margins—with the votes of married, exurban women, of independents, of moderate men. Many of these voters are generally conservative. They are also generally open to, even reassured by, candidates of faith. They are not thrilled by the recent trend in the social-conservative movement toward using government to impose a particular morality—a trend that Mr. Santorum would seem to highlight.

Ronald Reagan’s success in creating his coalition was highlighting the common desires of both social and economic conservatives. Grover Norquist famously termed it the “Leave Us Alone Coalition.” Reagan assured cultural conservatives that he would keep the federal government out of their homes, out of their faith, away from their guns. This dovetailed with his promise to free-marketers and libertarians of a more limited government. It was a great formula, rooted in liberty. It allowed Republicans to highlight their own social conservatism—an issue that plays well—even as they reassured voters that they, unlike liberals, wouldn’t use government to impose their worldview.

Yet as social conservatives have grown in political strength, more have turned to government. While many read George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” as an explanation of the benefits of limited government, others saw it as a call for conservatives to embrace government for their own social-policy ends. This has allowed liberals to turn the tables, to frighten many Americans about the risks of a conservative-imposed social agenda.

It is here that Mr. Santorum has a problem. The Pennsylvanian is a man of deep faith, which many Americans might admire. He is also campaigning on the argument that strong religious communities and families make for a strong America. This, too, is something that ought to resonate with voters, as many believe that these institutions are best suited to solve most problems, and that government needs to get out of their way.

Yet Mr. Santorum has left many Americans with the impression that he believes it his job as president to revitalize these institutions. And he has done little to reassure voters that his personal views will not become policy. Quite the opposite. Mr. Santorum loves, for instance, to highlight his plans to triple the child tax credit—out-and-out social policy clearly rooted in his desire to increase childbirth. Voters will naturally wonder what other values he’d seek to institute via government.

All the more so, given Mr. Santorum’s unrefined method of delivering his social message. It is one thing to argue that the federal government has no right to force religious affiliates to pay for contraception; or to say that courts should not impose gay marriage; or to criticize policies that are biased against stay-at-home moms. All those statements appeal to basic liberty and are winners for the GOP.

It is quite another for Mr. Santorum to rail that contraception is “harmful” to women; to wax on about the “emotions” surrounding women on the front lines; to graphically inform the nation about his “problem with homosexual acts”; or to moan, as he did in his book, that too many women refuse to stay home with their kids but rather use “convenient” rationalizations to fool themselves into thinking “professional accomplishments are the key to happiness.” (All to at least some extent true; but nonetheless scary to a majority of Americans….and unfortunately, getting the votes of a majority of Americans and unseating Obama is ALL this election is about!)

Those statements are rooted in a fervent moral view, one that many general-election voters will fear Mr. Santorum wants to impose on them. They will reject it, and not just because they won’t risk a president who might legislate values. They will reject it because it will offend them. Reagan’s success was in respecting cultural conservatives’ right to live their lives as they saw fit. Mr. Santorum’s mistake is in telling people how to live.

His finger-wagging on contraception and child-rearing and “homosexual acts” disrespects the vast majority of couples who use birth control, or who refuse to believe that the emancipation of women, or society’s increasing tolerance of gays, signals the end of the Republic. It’s why a recent poll out of Arizona showed women favoring Mitt Romney over Rick Santorum by 2 to 1. And these are Republican women.

Mr. Santorum cannot outrun his past, but he can begin reassuring. He made a start at the Arizona debate, stating: “Here’s the difference between me and the left. . . . Just because I’m talking about it doesn’t mean I want a government program to fix it.” But what Mr. Santorum really needs is to find a less judgmental way of discussing social issues, even as he makes crystal clear that—whatever his views—they will not become policy.

That won’t be easy for the former senator, who takes a certain pride in wearing these controversies on his sleeve. But if he wants the White House, he’ll have to convince a lot of people that he doesn’t intend to govern as Moralizer in Chief.

Frankly, we don’t think it will matter, because Senator Sweater Vest will never get the chance.

Next up, as Guy Benson relays in Townhall.com, even The Anointed One’s devoted disciples in the MSM question his commitment to his partisan corporate tax reform ploy:

The Associated Press –

While Obama has been promoting various aspects of his economic agenda in personal appearances and speeches, the decision to leave the corporate tax plan to the Treasury Department to unveil signaled its lower priority. What’s more, the administration’s framework leaves much for Congress to decide — a deliberate move by the administration to encourage negotiations but which also doesn’t subject the plan to detailed scrutiny.

Reuters –

On Friday, Congress approved extending a payroll tax cut through the end of 2012. Its expiration will coincide with several other fiscal earthquakes: the expirations of individual tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush, and $1.2 trillion in automatic budget cuts across all government programs imposed as part of last year’s deal to raise the debt ceiling. After these events and others, analysts said, thorough tax reform may be a realistic prospect. For now, they said, tax proposals will largely amount to political messaging.

The New York Times –

The White House provided few details on Wednesday, and most concerned the proposed reductions rather than the offsetting increases, thwarting detailed analysis. The administration introduced its overhauls of financial regulation and health care in the same way. But the high-concept approach also reflects that Wednesday’s announcement was a campaign event. There is little chance that a divided Congress, its attention focused on November, will overhaul the corporate tax code this year.

To summarize, (1) the White House offers scant details, rendering its plans unscorable by analysts, (2) it punts legislative specifics and uncomfortable decisions to Congress, and (3) Obama didn’t even show up to preside over his own “campaign event” dog and pony show, betraying how little he cares about the fate of the program.  We’ve witnessed this brand of leadership abdication over and over and over and over and over and over again from this president.  Hey, but at least he’s staked out a bold stance on gay marriage! (As Chris Christie details in the Video Clip of the Day, available for viewing at www.thedailygouge.com.)

“He’s said he’s evolving on the issue.” [Laughter].

And in the “With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?!?” segment….

Los Angeles Police Chief Wants Driver’s Licenses for Undocumented (i.e., ILLEGAL!) Immigrants

Whose side is Chief Charlie on?!?

The Los Angeles police chief favors allowing undocumented immigrants to drive because, he says, it will make the roads safer for everyone. The chief, Charlie Beck, said he does not necessarily support issuing them standard driver’s licenses, but perhaps a special document that would show their identity, and provide proof that they have the skills to drive legally in the state.

Beck, who expressed his views in an interview Wednesday with the Los Angeles Times, argued that the state has failed to reduce the number of undocumented immigrants driving without a license. “The reality is that all the things that we’ve done — ‘we’ being the state of California — over the last 14, 16 years have not reduced the problem one iota, haven’t reduced undocumented aliens driving without licenses,” Beck said.

That’s because you — ‘you’ being the State of California — have done nothing to reduce the number of illegal aliens; if anything, you — ‘you’ being the State of California — have done everything within your power to ENCOURAGE their presence!

Beck’s hypocritical hand-wringing is just another example of Liberals first creating/egregiously exacerbating a problem, then bemoaning its insolubility and finally advocating society surrender to its inevitability. If, as Beck suggests, illegal aliens are so easily distinguished from law-abiding immigrants they can be granted “special” documents, why not just DEPORT THEM?!?

And need we mention the paradoxical absurdity of an illegal alien doing anything in the United States “legally”?!?  Only in Liberal Land could such illogic earn the pretense of sense.

On the Lighter Side….

Then there’s this classic look at life in the Corps (Semper Fi!) from John Cotton….

….as well as this telling advertisement from the February 5th edition of the Panama City, FL News Herald:

Finally, we’ll call it a week with News of the Bizarre, courtesy today of Bret Baier and one completely confused convert:

Leap of Faith

The son of Oscar-winning filmmaker Oliver Stone says he has encountered a lot more resistance to his recent conversion to Islam while in Iran than he anticipated. Christopher Stone says he is having trouble financing movie projects because American investors are concerned he is a terrorist.

Go figure!

Magoo